Cycle News is a weekly magazine that covers all aspects of motorcycling including Supercross, Motocross and MotoGP as well as new motorcycles
Issue link: https://magazine.cyclenews.com/i/126309
competition. When th ey say "closed
circuit
they
mean
spectator
controll ed ra ce tracks . Tha t means
enduro bikes. ISDT bik es , d esert
racer s. h are scramblers and all ot he r
cross-country type racers have to meet
the noi se limits. And if th at means
th ey a ll have to race four-stro kes by
1982 or 198 3. the government cou ld
ca re less.
Now. how a bo ut money? The EPA
has figured that . too . At the 78dbA
level (co me 1985 ) th e " best availa ble
tech nology" cou ld ta ck as much as
$215 to th e price of a 750cc street bike .
Even a stree t-leg al tid dl er ( 100· 169cc)
could -cost a n extra S124 . just to be
qui et! Am on g off-readers, th e big bor e.folks (over 350cc ) co u ld p ay $125
or m ore fo r th e cos t of so u n d
suppression .
That 's in 1975 doll ars. of course.
and tthis is 1978. Which brings up
anot her point. All through th e EPA 's
su ppo rting do cumen tation . you fin d
I th eir -sou rce m aterial dated
1975 or
I earlier . That's not too swift.
You see . in 197 5 . th e world
i changed. Beginning with mot orcycles
manufa ctured th at ye a r (o r even
ea rl ie r) the states of Californ ia .
Connecticut . Col orado . Fl orida .
Maryland . Montana . and Nevada all
passel! noise limits identical . or very
similar. to th e federal first -step lim it
for • st re e t bik es. Oregon a n d
W ashington followed suit .
In other wo rds , here you 've got
several important stat es already doing
i exactly what the feds propose to do as
I a firs t step. Yet the EPA , in just ifying
Iits p roposal, quotes data gen erated
before those state programs could take
hold'r\Why? Would th e facts show that
the J~~eral regulation is no longer
nece;sa ry? In any case , the EPA has
ja ck~ around long enough that much
o f its d ocum ent ati on is o bsolete .
Somebody should point that out , come
th e day of the hearing.
You mi ght wonder . if we seem to be
able to live and let live at a reggul at ory
level of 83db on -road/Bf off-ro ad ; and
if th e MIC can d emonst r a te to
legislators (as th ey have don e) th at
t hese
leve ls
a re
not
rea ll y
objecti onable, how co me bo th sta te
and fed er al govern ments keep p ush ing
for lower limits?
C a ll the answe r " a tt itu d e, " and
begi n d igg in g into th e fede ra l
pa pe rwo rk again . You 'll find , bu ried
in thei r ba ckground d ocument (and
sum marized in th ei r proposal) th e re al
engi ne that's driving th is th in g. It 's
ca lled prejudi ce - a n d very o ld
preju di ce a t that.
First th e EPA parades a cha rt th at
says "s u bject ive noi se r at in g o f
motorcycle sound levels" that a ppea rs
to sh ow that mo st people th ink 78 to
86 dbA is "a ccepta b le." 70 dbA is nice
and quiet, and 90 or above is too
noisy. The source is a British study,
present ed a t th e com m a n d 0 1 the
Queen , in 1963 1(Chart 1.)
They take another tack, too . in
justifying their proposal : sayi ng that
althou gh motorcycles only m ake up
2 % of the traffic stream , th e majority
of people rate th em a nuisan ce . so th ey
must really be bad . On e study th ey've
cited see ms to show that only twothirds as many people rate tru cks a
n oi se
probl em
co m pa r ed ' to
mot orcycles. And another study seems '
to show that except for buses.
motorcycles are th e most annoying
vehicles around. This in spite of the
fact that trash trucks have been proven
no isier than both. The dates of th ese
"a u t ho r itative" st u dies? 1971 and
1973!
IS
Chart I
10
"EXCESSIVELY
NOISY"
8 f--- - - - - - + - f
(.:J
z
i=
~ "N OISY"
6 wl-- - - + - - - i 8 7.2 dB(A)
>
i=
u
82.5dB(A)
W
...,
co . "ACCEPTABLE"
4 ~---f-----f77 .8 dB(A)
z